[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
"exactly the same B" as he had in the chord at the beginning >of the piece. The rest of us immediately said, "That is the >problem. In the first chord your B was the fifth in the E >minor chord, and at the end it is the 3rd of the G major chord." This is the same phenomenon as I was banging on about a few days ago. >(i.e. concert F or G depending on which chanter is >being used) because that is a better note to tune to than the >traditional A - especially if most of the tunes to be played >will be in G, It is my speculation that the F+ tuning originated from a prolific maker taking an A = 440 tuning fork as the reference for the nominal B and then tuning chanters by ear, with the (desirable) result that the nominal G ended up around 14 cents sharp of concert G because it had been tuned acoustically pure rather than to an equally tempered reference tone. Reverse this process, and a "concert F" chanter will have a nominal B that is (desirably) around 14 cents flat of the A string of a violin tuned to A = 440. F+ is often described as "around 10 to 20 cents sharp" of concert F. 14 is near as dammit in the middle of that range. >When you listen to really good "a capella" (unaccompanied) >small vocal ensembles such as the "King's Singers" you are >struck by the perfection of their harmonies. Or the Hilliard Ensemble. Or autotuned pop singers! > >Perhaps other people disagree with me and this will stir up a >hornet's nest. It is just my personal thoughts on the subject >and i don't claim to be an expert. Sheila, these may be your personal thoughts, but not "just". They are backed up by physics and arithmetic. Details of tuning may well be a matter of preference, but they are not a matter of opinion. I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do claim to have understood the essentials and to have an ear that is sensitive to pure intervals. Any hornets nest could only be stirred up by people with bees in their bonnet ;-) HTH Csírz To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Chanter Tuning
I don't know exactly how flat A = 398 is but it can't be very far off F+, given that A = 392 would correspond to concert G. I wonder if Anthony would agree therefore that since lots of the notes are sharp, a good starting point would be to pull the reed out a fraction? C >-Original Message- >From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >[mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Robb >Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:56 PM >To: Dartmouth NPS >Subject: [NSP] Chanter Tuning > > > > From Chris Gregg: > > So that is why my pipes always sound out of tune, and I >thought it > was > just poor musicianship on my part! > The whole tuning thing is a bit of a quagmire, and as a solo > instrument > it is not a problem, but I would like to know how people >get around > it > in recording sessions. > > > Hello Chris > > This sounds to me as though your bottom G is a tad flat and >that's why > so many notes seem sharp. > > The other thing to say is that the chanter, in all >likelihood, could be > brought in tune with careful use of PVA glue (for sharp notes) and a > scalpel fitted with an 11P blade (for flat notes). > > Before doing anything drastic, however, I would get to know your > chanter's idiosyncrasies by removing the cotton wool plug, >if there is > one, from the bottom of the bore. Then I'd repeat your measurements > (draw up a table) with a cotton bud inserted at set >positions into the > bore. I'd start off with the rounded tip in at 10mm then go >up by 5mm > increments to within 15mm of your bottom D (for a 7 key chanter) > checking the tuning of each note as you go. Write down your >results so > the pattern can be seen at a glance. This will tell you how >much effect > the standing waves below each chanter note are affecting >the pitch of > each note. You might find one position will bring your >chanter closer > in tune with itself. If the cotton bud makes matters worse >I'd insert a > 20mm narrow cone of cotton wool (point first) into the >chanter and see > if that helps. > > If you do need to resort to scalpel & glue I'd do this with >the cotton > wool cone to minimise standing waves interfering with your tuning. > > Let me know how you get on. > > With regards to recording sessions every group of pipers of >pipers will > have their own solution. As you say solo is fine as the piper can > adjust where necessary. At the other end of the scale >massed pipes are > OK too because variations with 5 chanters or more tend to >balance out. > The trickiest we find is when 3 pipes are playing together. We found > that recording the three chanters together without drones (live or > recorded) works best as each of us listens out for what is happening > with the other players and adjusts where necessary. Then drones are > tuned to the chanters and added to the mix. This can mean up to 11.5 > mins of constant drone without fingering the chanter at all which is > surprisingly tiring on the fingers. It also means that >chanters have to > be played at a fairly consistent pitch and in with each >other without > any external reference point at all. But then as we can see from the > recent posts external references are often a hindrance rather that a > help in that situation. > > I hope some of this helps but please remember no theories whatsoever > have been used as a basis for this advice just 40 years >mucking about > with some of the loveliest chanters around (Burleigh, >Gruar, Hedworth, > Nelson and Ross) and nowt but my own lugs as final arbiter. > > Good Luck > > Anthony > > -- > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
[NSP] Re: Chanter Tuning
>I don't know exactly how flat A = 398 is but it can't be very >far off F+, Sorry, badly worded. I mean it can't be very far off an A that would give you F+. c given that A = 392 would correspond to concert G. >I wonder if Anthony would agree therefore that since lots of >the notes are sharp, a good starting point would be to pull >the reed out a fraction? >C > >>-Original Message- >>From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu >>[mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Robb >>Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:56 PM >>To: Dartmouth NPS >>Subject: [NSP] Chanter Tuning >> >> >> >> From Chris Gregg: >> >> So that is why my pipes always sound out of tune, and I >>thought it >> was >> just poor musicianship on my part! >> The whole tuning thing is a bit of a quagmire, and as a solo >> instrument >> it is not a problem, but I would like to know how people >>get around >> it >> in recording sessions. >> >> >> Hello Chris >> >> This sounds to me as though your bottom G is a tad flat and >>that's why >> so many notes seem sharp. >> >> The other thing to say is that the chanter, in all >>likelihood, could be >> brought in tune with careful use of PVA glue (for sharp >notes) and a >> scalpel fitted with an 11P blade (for flat notes). >> >> Before doing anything drastic, however, I would get to know your >> chanter's idiosyncrasies by removing the cotton wool plug, >>if there is >> one, from the bottom of the bore. Then I'd repeat your measurements >> (draw up a table) with a cotton bud inserted at set >>positions into the >> bore. I'd start off with the rounded tip in at 10mm then go >>up by 5mm >> increments to within 15mm of your bottom D (for a 7 key chanter) >> checking the tuning of each note as you go. Write down your >>results so >> the pattern can be seen at a glance. This will tell you how >>much effect >> the standing waves below each chanter note are affecting >>the pitch of >> each note. You might find one position will bring your >>chanter closer >> in tune with itself. If the cotton bud makes matters worse >>I'd insert a >> 20mm narrow cone of cotton wool (point first) into the >>chanter and see >> if that helps. >> >> If you do need to resort to scalpel & glue I'd do this with >>the cotton >> wool cone to minimise standing waves interfering with your tuning. >> >> Let me know how you get on. >> >> With regards to recording sessions every group of pipers of >>pipers will >> have their own solution. As you say solo is fine as the piper can >> adjust where necessary. At the other end of the scale >>massed pipes are >> OK too because variations with 5 chanters or more tend to >>balance out. >> The trickiest we find is when 3 pipes are playing >together. We found >> that recording the three chanters together without drones (live or >> recorded) works best as each of us listens out for what is >happening >> with the other players and adjusts where necessary. Then drones are >> tuned to the chanters and added to the mix. This can mean >up to 11.5 >> mins of constant drone without fingering the chanter at >all which is >> surprisingly tiring on the fingers. It also means that >>chanters have to >> be played at a fairly consistent pitch and in with each >>other without >> any external reference point at all. But then as we can >see from the >> recent posts external references are often a hindrance >rather that a >> help in that situation. >> >> I hope some of this helps but please remember no theories >whatsoever >> have been used as a basis for this advice just 40 years >>mucking about >> with some of the loveliest chanters around (Burleigh, >>Gruar, Hedworth, >> Nelson and Ross) and nowt but my own lugs as final arbiter. >> >> Good Luck >> >> Anthony >> >> -- >> >> >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > >
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: > It is my speculation that the F+ tuning originated from a prolific maker > taking an A = 440 tuning fork as the reference for the nominal B and then > tuning chanters by ear, with the (desirable) result that the nominal G ended > up around 14 cents sharp of concert G because it had been tuned acoustically > pure rather than to an equally tempered reference tone. Reverse this process, > and a "concert F" chanter will have a nominal B that is (desirably) around 14 > cents flat of the A string of a violin tuned to A = 440. > Can one maker (which one?) have that much influence? I was told 20 cents sharp of F is the tradition. I tune my chanter manipulating the reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune with myself. Didn't a pipemaker write on this NG a while ago that the more keys you want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning individual notes? To play in pure Em one might have to order a chanter to play specifically in Em. This topic is always fun. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
>Can one maker (which one?) have that much influence? Possibly, I think. I didn't have a specific one in mind as I was primarily speculating on the process (that's why I wrote "a maker" rather than "one maker", but didn't CR fairly recently mention someone "down the road" making lots and lots of pipes in F+? >I was told 20 >cents sharp of F is the tradition. I've heard variously "about 20" and "between 10 and 20" (and occasionally 25) I tune my chanter manipulating the >reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best >balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off >from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other >pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune >with myself. This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play with others or a band the more keys you >want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning >individual notes? This is inevitable. It's why the concept of "temperament" originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also problematic in A minor. > To play in pure Em one might have to order a >chanter to play specifically in Em. In an ideal world, yes! CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Chanter tuning
Christopher Birch wrote recently: I don't know exactly how flat A = 398 is but it can't be very far off F+, given that A = 392 would correspond to concert G. I wonder if Anthony would agree therefore that since lots of the notes are sharp, a good starting point would be to pull the reed out a fraction? C Hello Chris F+ is a variable thing but 90% of pipers seem to blend their pipes failry pleasantly at A=446. This is 8 Hz sharper than the chanter in question so I'd be disinclined to pull the reed out as a first step, especially as the chanter has a top B which is already 25 cents flat. I'd be interested to see the results of the cotton bud plunger trials before changing anything to do with the set up. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for playing in G; another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E minor. The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as critical acoustically?? As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce in F+, and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu [christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu] Sent: 07 February 2011 09:56 To: dir...@gmail.com Cc: bri...@aol.com; chrisdgr...@gmail.com; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships >Can one maker (which one?) have that much influence? Possibly, I think. I didn't have a specific one in mind as I was primarily speculating on the process (that's why I wrote "a maker" rather than "one maker", but didn't CR fairly recently mention someone "down the road" making lots and lots of pipes in F+? >I was told 20 >cents sharp of F is the tradition. I've heard variously "about 20" and "between 10 and 20" (and occasionally 25) I tune my chanter manipulating the >reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best >balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off >from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other >pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune >with myself. This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play with others or a band the more keys you >want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning >individual notes? This is inevitable. It's why the concept of "temperament" originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also problematic in A minor. > To play in pure Em one might have to order a >chanter to play specifically in Em. In an ideal world, yes! CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Chanter tuning
< blend their pipes > failry pleasantly at A=446. Do you mean tuning your nominal G to the F you get on an equal temperament tuner if you set it to A = 446? Or do you mean tuning the nominal B to 446? These two possibilities would yield different results. (a higher nominal G in the second case). especially as the chanter has a top B which is already 25 >cents flat. > I'd be interested to see the results of the cotton bud >plunger trials > before changing anything to do with the set up. I'm sure you're correct, but it sounds as though the top B definitely needs attention. C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
On 7 Feb 2011, at 11:21, Gibbons, John wrote: A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for playing in G; another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E minor. The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as critical acoustically?? As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce in F+, and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. CB And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? Dru To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
>A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, >for playing in G; >another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing >in E minor. Yes, this is what I meant by 8 (different) notes to the octave rather than just seven. The lower, keyed, high E would also sound better when the melody emphasised the third C-E (Chevy Chase is a very obvious and simple example). >The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not >be as critical acoustically?? My own chanter has the low E an appreciable bit more than an octave lower than the top E, so I can get away with an E-B drone quite effectively. In other keys it is indeed not as critical acoustically. Meanwhile the top E (which I think is in a compromise position) can be bag-tweaked up or down to suit the circumstances. > >As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both >produce in F+, >and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's >to blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. Please don't misunderstand me. I was not seeking to apportion blame; just speculating as to the mechanism whereby this standard came about. C > >I've heard variously "about 20" and "between 10 and 20" (and >occasionally 25) > > I tune my chanter manipulating the >>reed depending on the season and the reed, trying to get the best >>balance up and down the chanter, regardless of how many cents I'm off >>from F. Of course, this creates problems when playing with other >>pipers. But I reckon, at least I'm blowing steady and I'm in tune >>with myself. > >This is probably the best approach unless you regularly play >with others or a band > > >the more keys you >>want to play in, then the more compromises you have to make in tuning >>individual notes? > >This is inevitable. It's why the concept of "temperament" >originated in the first place. Even D poses problems where the >E is concerned (so does G for that matter!) and the B is also >problematic in A minor. > >> To play in pure Em one might have to order a >>chanter to play specifically in Em. > >In an ideal world, yes! > >CB > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
>And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got >gradually >sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' >were made >when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong >all this time? This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) nowadays). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Dru Brooke-Taylor Sent: 07 February 2011 11:39 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships On 7 Feb 2011, at 11:21, Gibbons, John wrote: > A compromise might be a pair of e's, one a true 6th above G, for > playing in G; > another - a perfect fourth above the B, and keyed, for playing in E > minor. > The low E might be harder to arrange practically, but may not be as > critical acoustically?? > > As the most prolific and also one of the best pipemakers both produce > in F+, > and most others too, I don't see much benefit in arguing who's to > blame for the emergence of this de facto standard. > CB And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? Dru To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
It always fascinates me how the tuning of things changes (I have a concertina in "high pitch"). For those (like me) not well versed in the mechanics and theory of things, this makes good reading: http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/pitch.html (and also which locations not to attempt to play the pipes with the instruments noted). What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Imagine if they did that with yards etc (change to metric notwithstanding) or liquid measure (I asked for a pint, what's this? - Oh the pint has been getting smaller over the years..). A standard should be just that - a standard. If it changes, it ain't standard! Good interesting thread though. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:45 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) nowadays). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Tuning
Chris, John, Dru & others In no particular order: * I set my Korg DA 30 to 446 using the calibration button and take it from there * I've got a chanter in for overhaul at the moment and have just seen the top B rise in pitch bt 20 cents by moving a plunger in from 10mm to 25mm * My solo pipes are happy playing at 458 which is well on the way to F# but when I do Em tunes I tune drones to a reasonably happy compromise between fingered B and bottom E. To keep in acceptable tune with these drones I find I am playing at 454. I keep it all as relaxed as possible and "Bonny at Morn", "Peter Bailey's Pig" etc sound good to my ears. * When I retune my small D drone from the 5th its G drones postion to the tonic for D tunes I find that it needs sharpening a tad for tunes like "Flowers of the Forest" & "Top It Off" but flattening a tad for softer tunes like "Water of Tyne" & "March of the King of Laoise". I don't necessarily advise this as a general principle but for me it works in these differing situations where the nature of the tune being played asks for a different amount of attack. Can I add that these adjustments/observations hold true well after my pipes are well settled down, have had a good 30min play in and reached that alive, buzzing and and "up for anything stage" beneath the fingers. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
On 7 Feb 2011, at 13:03, Gibbons, John wrote: > Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; > close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. Yes, that's right. Or to be more precise, Reid pipes play most happily at F# using (and insert italics here) the most appropriate dimensions of the modern reed which may well be pretty different from the kind of reed that Reid intended (conclude italics and insert exclamation marks). F# is a lovely pitch, enhancing the staccato capabilities of the chanter without encountering the compromises in terms of hole spacing, comfort and tone evident in many G chanters. F and G both have the advantage of convenience since they're both standard pitches - even if you do derive them them from the equally tempered A=440 scale and then proceed to play a non-equally tempered scale! Both have the advantage that they are sociable pitches in that they can be played with fixed pitch instruments, concertinas for example. As for F + 20, its use is unknown in the rest of the civilised world. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
>>>What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Orchestral pitch has become higher because orchestras over the past couple of hundred years have tended towards increasing "brightness" or "brilliance" of sound. (Think Boston Symphony versus Chicago Symphony or French orchestras versus German orchestras.) There is a basic psychological tendency to associate brightness with higher pitch. Also, players intuitively feel that sharpness is more acceptable than flatness (which sounds "sourer" and "wronger") and tend to play "at the top of the note" to avoid the dreaded flatness. Higher pitched wind instruments are also more audible within the orchestral matrix. The same tendency applies to choirs, which generally tend to rise in pitch if not held back by the orchestra (and the conductor, of course). In a previous life, I performed on various renaissance wind instruments. The tendency of the wind ensemble was ALWAYS to go sharp, NEVER flat. As a cornetto player, I often ended up playing "on my teeth" (i.e. desperately forced to follow the rising pitch of my colleagues). The only solution -- as always -- was to force people to "listen to the f***in' bass line!" Since all the upper parts are essentially overtones of the bass, staying in tune with the bass is the only way to be in tune. It helps massively if there is a fixed-pitch keyboard instrument underlying the ensemble, preferably an organ. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 07 February 2011 14:03 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships It always fascinates me how the tuning of things changes (I have a concertina in "high pitch"). For those (like me) not well versed in the mechanics and theory of things, this makes good reading: http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/pitch.html (and also which locations not to attempt to play the pipes with the instruments noted). What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Imagine if they did that with yards etc (change to metric notwithstanding) or liquid measure (I asked for a pint, what's this? - Oh the pint has been getting smaller over the years..). A standard should be just that - a standard. If it changes, it ain't standard! Good interesting thread though. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:45 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships > > >>And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got >>gradually >>sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' >>were made >>when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong >>all this time? > > > This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning > fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) > manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard > (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) > nowadays). > C > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
John Dally wrote: >>>This topic is always fun. Indeed it is! Forgive me if I have made these recommendations already in this forum (I can't remember) but if you are in any way interested in tuning you will love Ross W. Duffin: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Equal-Temperament-Ruined-Harmony/dp/0393334201/ ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1297092983&sr=8-3) And if you are seriously interested in the history of pitch (as opposed to tuning), you need to get Bruce Haynes: A History of Performing Pitch: The Story of 'A' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Performing-Pitch-Story/dp/0810841851/ref=sr _1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297093102&sr=1-3) Cheers, Paul Gretton To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Anthony Robb <[1]anth...@robbpipes.com> wrote: * My solo pipes are happy playing at 458 which is well on the way to F# but when I do Em tunes I tune drones to a reasonably happy compromise between fingered B and bottom E. To keep in acceptable tune with these drones I find I am playing at 454. I keep it all as relaxed as possible and "Bonny at Morn", "Peter Bailey's Pig" etc sound good to my ears. Just curious - why play Bonny At Morn in Em? Would Am not fall more readily under the fingers, or do people generally not have an Fnat key? -- References 1. mailto:anth...@robbpipes.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
I appreciate that but it still undermines the whole concept of having a standard anything. I suppose, eventually, we'll reach a stage when it just moves up an entire tone and ad infinitum. To revert to my previous analogy, I've been moaning a pint of beer is too small (as have many others) for years. They still haven't made it bigger though - although they thought about it with those metric glasses. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: "Paul Gretton" To: "'Colin'" ; Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:36 PM Subject: RE: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Orchestral pitch has become higher because orchestras over the past couple of hundred years have tended towards increasing "brightness" or "brilliance" of sound. (Think Boston Symphony versus Chicago Symphony or French orchestras versus German orchestras.) There is a basic psychological tendency to associate brightness with higher pitch. Also, players intuitively feel that sharpness is more acceptable than flatness (which sounds "sourer" and "wronger") and tend to play "at the top of the note" to avoid the dreaded flatness. Higher pitched wind instruments are also more audible within the orchestral matrix. The same tendency applies to choirs, which generally tend to rise in pitch if not held back by the orchestra (and the conductor, of course). In a previous life, I performed on various renaissance wind instruments. The tendency of the wind ensemble was ALWAYS to go sharp, NEVER flat. As a cornetto player, I often ended up playing "on my teeth" (i.e. desperately forced to follow the rising pitch of my colleagues). The only solution -- as always -- was to force people to "listen to the f***in' bass line!" Since all the upper parts are essentially overtones of the bass, staying in tune with the bass is the only way to be in tune. It helps massively if there is a fixed-pitch keyboard instrument underlying the ensemble, preferably an organ. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 07 February 2011 14:03 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships It always fascinates me how the tuning of things changes (I have a concertina in "high pitch"). For those (like me) not well versed in the mechanics and theory of things, this makes good reading: http://www.piano-tuners.org/history/pitch.html (and also which locations not to attempt to play the pipes with the instruments noted). What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Imagine if they did that with yards etc (change to metric notwithstanding) or liquid measure (I asked for a pint, what's this? - Oh the pint has been getting smaller over the years..). A standard should be just that - a standard. If it changes, it ain't standard! Good interesting thread though. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:45 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships And I've been telling people it is because all notes have got gradually sharper over the last 150 years, and that the Reid 'ur-pipes' were made when G was somewhere between where F and G are now. Have I been wrong all this time? This is probably an associated factor. My speculation about the 440 tuning fork more concerned modern pipes (which are inevitably in the majority) manufactured after the introduction of 440 as an international standard (though many windplayers and hence orchestras incline to 442 (or even 443) nowadays). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
On 7 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: > Yes, that's right. Or to be more precise, Reid pipes play most happily > at F# using (and insert italics here) the most appropriate dimensions > of the modern reed which may well be pretty different from the kind of > reed that Reid intended (conclude italics and insert exclamation > marks). in response to: > On 7 Feb 2011, at 13:03, Gibbons, John wrote: > > > Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; > > close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. Shortly after Andrew Davison took over the 17 key R. Reid set he now plays (which apparently is c. 1836) the fettler who helped him set it up remarked to me that they first, without altering *anything* put in "a reed" - design unspecified - and Andrew played it. The resulting pitch, without any work, oddities or messing on, was F + 20. The entire 170+ year service history of the set is not known, so of course it may have been "attended to" many years ago. and Francis continued: > F# is a lovely pitch, enhancing the staccato capabilities of the > chanter without encountering the compromises in terms of hole spacing, > comfort and tone evident in many G chanters. I totally agree. >F and G both have the > advantage of convenience since they're both standard pitches ..Both have the > advantage > that they are sociable pitches in that they can be played with fixed > pitch instruments, concertinas for example. > > As for F + 20, its use is unknown in the rest of the civilised world. My understanding of the compromises by which this was reached is that until about the 1960s, very few players could play together as the pitch was all over the shop. There were one or two exceptions, but near enough for a generalisation. As more players started, it became apparent that this variation was becoming a major issue. An attempt was made to standardise on concert F by one prominent maker, but this was rendered impractical by the output of another which varied from just sharp of concert F to almost F#. With the reeds mostly in use at this time (60s/70s) attempts to "drop" to concert F when in groups were not successful, and the F+20 pitch was a necessary compromise which could be reached by most players. Checking the pressure and pitch of a roomful of players determined that most, then, were playing at 14-16" water gauge to reach F+20. And there the practicalities rested. It does have the unintended consequence of keeping off the fixed pitch instruments, which may or may not be an advantage, according to taste. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
'It does have the unintended consequence of keeping off the fixed pitch instruments, which may or may not be an advantage, according respectively to taste or the lack of it.' Discuss... -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Julia Say Sent: 07 February 2011 17:26 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu; Francis Wood Cc: 'Dru Brooke-Taylor'; Gibbons, John Subject: [NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships On 7 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: > Yes, that's right. Or to be more precise, Reid pipes play most happily > at F# using (and insert italics here) the most appropriate dimensions > of the modern reed which may well be pretty different from the kind of > reed that Reid intended (conclude italics and insert exclamation > marks). in response to: > On 7 Feb 2011, at 13:03, Gibbons, John wrote: > > > Reid pipes were generally made sharper than the current F+; > > close to modern F# in many cases, so Francis and Graham tell me. Shortly after Andrew Davison took over the 17 key R. Reid set he now plays (which apparently is c. 1836) the fettler who helped him set it up remarked to me that they first, without altering *anything* put in "a reed" - design unspecified - and Andrew played it. The resulting pitch, without any work, oddities or messing on, was F + 20. The entire 170+ year service history of the set is not known, so of course it may have been "attended to" many years ago. and Francis continued: > F# is a lovely pitch, enhancing the staccato capabilities of the > chanter without encountering the compromises in terms of hole spacing, > comfort and tone evident in many G chanters. I totally agree. >F and G both have the > advantage of convenience since they're both standard pitches ..Both have the > advantage > that they are sociable pitches in that they can be played with fixed > pitch instruments, concertinas for example. > > As for F + 20, its use is unknown in the rest of the civilised world. My understanding of the compromises by which this was reached is that until about the 1960s, very few players could play together as the pitch was all over the shop. There were one or two exceptions, but near enough for a generalisation. As more players started, it became apparent that this variation was becoming a major issue. An attempt was made to standardise on concert F by one prominent maker, but this was rendered impractical by the output of another which varied from just sharp of concert F to almost F#. With the reeds mostly in use at this time (60s/70s) attempts to "drop" to concert F when in groups were not successful, and the F+20 pitch was a necessary compromise which could be reached by most players. Checking the pressure and pitch of a roomful of players determined that most, then, were playing at 14-16" water gauge to reach F+20. And there the practicalities rested. It does have the unintended consequence of keeping off the fixed pitch instruments, which may or may not be an advantage, according to taste. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Esoteric tuning relationships
Hi Paul. I read that book, along with another one which argued that equal temperament made Modern (post-modern?) Civilization the "greatest the world has ever known," or something like that. Sorry, I don't remember the name of the book or its author. I didn't agree with his premise or his thesis, but then again my motto might be "if it ain't diatonic why bother?" > Ross W. Duffin: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should > Care) I've been reading about microtonal scales, which were and still are used by the same people who brought us the concept of "0" and the seven day week. Any analysis of scales on our chosen instrument has to always keep the drone in the back ground, otherwise we might as well be a clarinet NG. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
Hello Matt Yep, it's a 7 key chanter so no F nats. Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed (OK, there have only been 3 in 40 years!) prefer that key. And finally, as an instrumental it makes a loamishly lovely springboard to dive into P B's P. Cheers Anthony --- On Mon, 7/2/11, Matt Seattle wrote: From: Matt Seattle Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning To: "Dartmouth NPS" Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 16:41 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Anthony Robb <[1][1]anth...@robbpipes.com> wrote: * My solo pipes are happy playing at 458 which is well on the way to F# but when I do Em tunes I tune drones to a reasonably happy compromise between fingered B and bottom E. To keep in acceptable tune with these drones I find I am playing at 454. I keep it all as relaxed as possible and "Bonny at Morn", "Peter Bailey's Pig" etc sound good to my ears. Just curious - why play Bonny At Morn in Em? Would Am not fall more readily under the fingers, or do people generally not have an Fnat key? -- References 1. mailto:[2]anth...@robbpipes.com To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc5.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anth...@robbpipes.com 2. http://uk.mc5.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anth...@robbpipes.com 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
